question about building space stations

[Xerxeskingofking]

Got the Mgt Space stations book for a xmas present to me, and, looking thought it, I see some interesting stuff and some stuff I personally don't like.

Anyway, looking at the station construction rules, I seem to see a bit of a problem, or rather two different parts of the rules saying two different things that are rather hard to reconcile.

On page 3, theirs a table that says how big a station can be built at a given TL. A TL 9 society, can, for example, built a station of up to 100,000 Dtons (which seems reasonable. That's about the size of a rather large skyscraper. Big, but not impossibly so for a "near future" tech level that TL9 is supposed to be)

Now, so far, so good. However, on page 5, theirs rules for the computer system, which place TL limits on the computer which enforce much smaller station sizes. Specifically, A TL9 society can only create a computer that can run a station of only 5,000 Dtons. to build a station type computer that can control a 100,000 Dton station, you need to be TL13, apparently.


Eh? I know we can we can built water craft vastly bigger than 5,000 dtons* right now. I'll accept that building a spaceship is much harder, but still, one of those two values seems to be rather far off the mark.

When you compare what a society can build using HG rules to the station rules, it appears that the computer TLs are way out of wack compared to their ship counterparts. A TL 9 society can build a jump capable ship of 5,000 tons, and a TL 10 society can build a 10,000 ton ship, but only a 5,000 ton station, unless it sticks a capital ship core in the station. A TL 11 society can build a 50,000 Dton ship, but a TL11 station computer is only good for 10,000 ton stations.

Has their been any official word on this? I can't be the first person to point out this disconnect.

*I tried to work out the dtonnage of the Seawise Giant, but couldn't get a good answer for its total height. but its somewhere upwards of 60,000 Dtons.

 

[rancke]

What about TL8 space habitats? There are a number of TL8 space societies in the Third Imperium setting.


Hans

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

*checks PDF*

they can build a station up to 3000 Dtons using a TL 7 computer. Or, if you allow prototype systems, a 5,000 ton station using a prototype TL9 computer.


the hull max chart starts at TL9. (100,000 Dtons). my guess is the difficulties of building a big station in a pre gravtics society mean they felt it wasn't worth stating how big a station they could theoretically build.

that said, a TL 8 system in the 3I would be able to buy a grav plate equipped ship form a higher tech planet, which would be by far the cheapest option to move goods into space.

the book as a TL 7 "antique" station design (200 ton, chemical P plant, not really good for much other than to prove you can put something in space).

 

[rancke]

they can build a station up to 3000 Dtons using a TL 7 computer. Or, if you allow prototype systems, a 5,000 ton station using a prototype TL9 computer.

Oh dear. That's going to be a problem for my explanation of how such a crappy world as Rethe can have 26 billion inhabitants. I've put most of them up into orbital habitats (and in the two asteroid belts).

Why have any limit at all? If you build two 3000T habitats and connect them with a short tube, do you suddenly have one 6,000T habitat that can't function? I think not. What if you build a 3000T cube and fit it together with seven other cubes? Why would that 24,000T structure not work?


Hans

 

[Hyphen]

Maybe this is a place for inserting a rule fix saying that space stations are more modular than ships, and therefore you need one computer per modular section, up to the max station size for that TL. Each section would then be the max size that one computer could handle.

(Aside) This may be where MT's "computer points" work better than a blanket computer-size-vs-hull-size rule. Under MT rules, having no engines (other than station-keeping) would vastly reduce the computer needs; translated, this would mean that one computer could cover the needs of a larger hull.

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

Oh dear. That's going to be a problem for my explanation of how such a crappy world as Rethe can have 26 billion inhabitants. I've put most of them up into orbital habitats (and in the two asteroid belts).

Why have any limit at all? If you build two 3000T habitats and connect them with a short tube, do you suddenly have one 6,000T habitat that can't function? I think not. What if you build a 3000T cube and fit it together with seven other cubes? Why would that 24,000T structure not work?


Hans

*shrug*

that's the rules as written. I didn't make them.

it gets even more stupid when you realise that, according to the rules for construction yards in the same book, to build a 5,000 ton ship you need a yard of at least 10,000 tons, on top of which you need to add on things like P plant, fuel, crew quarters, etc.

so, personally, I'd just ignore the TL restrictions on computers and just go off the max hull limits. Extrapolating the TL max hull sizes down, I'd go for something between 10,000-50,000 Dtons. (the table goes TL9: 100K, TL10: 500K, TL11: 1 million, TL 12: 10 million, TL 13: 100 million TL 14/15, 1 Billion dtons)

 

[Timerover51]

A Traveller dTon of roughly 14 cubic meter equates to 14 displacement tons metric for a wet ship. A big cruise ship currently runs about 140,000 or so displacement tons, so would equate to a 10,000 dTon Traveller ship. However, because of the high volume of a cruise ship, a quick and dirty calculation would make it the equivalent of about a 35,000 dTon Traveller ship (300 meters long X 40 meter beam X 40 meters from keel to top of continuous deck). The cruise ships are heavily computerized. A US Navy aircraft carrier displaces about 85,000 tons, which would equate to about a 7,000 dTon Traveller ship. However, you have a lot more volume in the carrier as well, so easily double that to 14,000 to 15,000 dTons. The ships are nuclear-powered and again heavily computerized.

Based on that, a Tech Level 9 society should have no problem with handling a 35,000 dTon to 100,000 dTon station, to include computers needed for control.

You might also want to take at look at the following online book on space colonies.

http://www.nss.org/settlement/ColoniesInSpace/index.html

And also search some of the NASA plans from the 1980s for space colonies. They were not small, and were deemed to be technically feasible at the time.

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

O'neil cylinders? I'm quite familiar with the concept, and they again prove that a pre stellar/early stellar society could build large space stations, given a suitable need and desire to.

yhea, I;m just gonna ignore the computer TL level and just build big stations at lower levels. sod it, it's MTU.

edit:

I was planning on statting up a TL9/TL10 deep space refuelling station, specifically one in Solomani Rim/1928 Solomani Rim/1927, or between Terra and Prometheus and Bernards star, built to support J1 traffic to the colonies. is their any intrest in such a project?

 

[pendragonman]

In my opinion, The TL computer restriction is about how much base a given computer can operate semi autonomously. The TL restriction is really about computer centralization, not size control.

It is very true that today's cruise ships and aircraft carriers are heavily computerized. Can anyone point me to where those ships are being operated by a single computer? No?

Now since we are talking about bases and stations, can anyone show me where, say, Chicago O'hare airport, and/or New York Harbor, and/or Hong Kong airport/harbor are all controlled by one computer? Nope? That is because at this tech level it is more productive to have several computers control these facilities than try to have one central computer run things.

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

In my opinion, The TL computer restriction is about how much base a given computer can operate semi autonomously. The TL restriction is really about computer centralization, not size control.

It is very true that today's cruise ships and aircraft carriers are heavily computerized. Can anyone point me to where those ships are being operated by a single computer? No?

Now since we are talking about bases and stations, can anyone show me where, say, Chicago O'hare airport, and/or New York Harbor, and/or Hong Kong airport/harbor are all controlled by one computer? Nope? That is because at this tech level it is more productive to have several computers control these facilities than try to have one central computer run things.

thing is, the computer systems for controlling stations are explicitly described as being distributed networks, without a single central core. capital ship computers do have a core for jump control, but the stations do not.


that said, I'm sure if you looked into, say Heathrow airport's IT systems, you would find it can all be centrally controlled by a user with suitable rights. the networks are built for redundancy, so their would likey be two or three server rooms spread around the airport, all of which would have the ability to run all flight critical services if the other sites go down (assuming the control links are not damaged).


budget permitting, of coruse.

 

[rancke]

that said, I'm sure if you looked into, say Heathrow airport's IT systems, you would find it can all be centrally controlled by a user with suitable rights. the networks are built for redundancy, so their would likey be two or three server rooms spread around the airport, all of which would have the ability to run all flight critical services if the other sites go down (assuming the control links are not damaged).

That's because, in Real Life, if you take two computers and hook them up, you get a more capable computer system (assuming compatible computers). The computer rules ought to allow you to build a factor 9 computer out of factor 1 computers. It would be bulkier, possibly too bulky for a given ship, and there might be some issues with speed (I'm not sure about that part), but apart from that it should be perfectly possible to build any factor computer at TL8.


Hans

 

[RandyB]

That's because, in Real Life, if you take two computers and hook them up, you get a more capable computer system (assuming compatible computers). The computer rules ought to allow you to build a factor 9 computer out of factor 1 computers. It would be bulkier, possibly too bulky for a given ship, and there might be some issues with speed (I'm not sure about that part), but apart from that it should be perfectly possible to build any factor computer at TL8.


Hans

It depends on how you hook them up; this is essentially parallel processing or cluster computing. The TL restriction may be a matter of managing the complexity of the connections rather than the existence of sufficiently capable hardware.

In the end, Traveller's computer rules are, like most of its other subsystems, a simplification that loses coherence around the edges; this is definitely on the edges.

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

It depends on how you hook them up; this is essentially parallel processing or cluster computing. The TL restriction may be a matter of managing the complexity of the connections rather than the existence of sufficiently capable hardware.

In the end, Traveller's computer rules are, like most of its other subsystems, a simplification that loses coherence around the edges; this is definitely on the edges.

It can be as simple as it likes, I just want it to be consistent. is it too much to ask for that a book that details at length how construction yards works, complete with rules for building ships and how long it takes, etc, is able to let a society build the ships that a major previous book said should be possible at a given TL?

A TL 10 society can build a 10,000 Dton ship, according to MgT High Guard. To build a 10,000Dton ship, you need a yard of 20,000 Dtons or more, with its power plant, fuel, crew etc. I'd guesstimate in the 30,000-50,000 dton range for a yard that size.

But ,by these rules, a TL10 society can only build a station of 5,000 Dtons, which, taking the example 5,000 dton shipyard in the book, can only build 1,000 dton ships.

see what I mean?

 

[pendragonman]

If the rules as written answered absolutely every question, it wouldn't be an RPG.

If the rules have internal inefficiencies, Welcome to Traveller. Just because it is Mongoose Traveller doesn't mean the inconsistencies are removed.

After all, from the regular version of Trillion Credit to the Mongoose version, they removed the currency exchange rules. From what I gather it is because they think that the currency exchange is about actual credits and not the way that local economies are modeled to show their contribution to a navy budget.

There are way more, but those things are what make it Traveller.

 

[rancke]

Game rules can be as simple as you like, but I really dislike any rule too simple to involve tradeoff considerations being used for world-building purposes. It's fine to say that the optimum computer rating achievable at a given TL is such and such, and it's OK to have rules that only reflect optimum usages. But it's not fine to say that if someone wants to build a bigger than optimum structure, then that's impossible, because the simplified rules don't allow for it.

Of course, for world-building purposes it's better to have the most common tradeoff considerations included in the rules.


Hans

 

[rancke]

There are way more, but those things are what make it Traveller.

The flaws are what makes it Traveller so one shouldn't try to fix them? I'm sorry, I don't accept that.

Mind you, I'm fine with you or anyone else embracing the flaws. I just don't want to do so myself.

Also, it's essentially a "who cares?" argument. IMO "who cares" arguments are inappropriate in discussions of how to fix flaws (or whether they are flaws in the first place), since the people who are involved in the discussion obviously do care.


Hans

 

[pendragonman]

The flaws are what makes it Traveller so one shouldn't try to fix them? I'm sorry, I don't accept that.

Mind you, I'm fine with you or anyone else embracing the flaws. I just don't want to do so myself.

Also, it's essentially a "who cares?" argument. IMO "who cares" arguments are inappropriate in discussions of how to fix flaws (or whether they are flaws in the first place), since the people who are involved in the discussion obviously do care.


Hans

Hans,

A) I never said that it shouldn't be fixed. I also never said one should fail an entire ruleset or module because of one of these flaws. I said these flaws are part and parcel of Traveller. Are you saying they aren't? I don't think so.

B) I have no issue with finding solutions, especially solutions sanctioned by the authors. On the other hand, I have extreme issues with someone who is not one of the authors ramming their particular solution down the throats of the rest of us. We have all experienced this on these boards. It isn't pleasant.

If the authors don't back a particular solution, that solution is a "In Your Traveller Universe" solution. Doesn't make it a correct solution, doesn't make it an unrealistic solution, It is just the workaround valid in YTU. Is this an incorrect, or illogical position?

 

[mike wightman]

The computer 'rules' suffer the same way a lot of the Traveller TL increases do - they should represent paradigm changes rather than incremental increases.
TL4 computer - mechanical
TL5 computer - valves
TL6 computer - transistor
TL7 computer - semi-conductor
TL8 computer - 'quantum' however they eventually get it working
TL10+ I have no worlds because I have no idea what the architecture will be based on

 

[Timerover51]

In my opinion, The TL computer restriction is about how much base a given computer can operate semi autonomously. The TL restriction is really about computer centralization, not size control.

It is very true that today's cruise ships and aircraft carriers are heavily computerized. Can anyone point me to where those ships are being operated by a single computer? No?

Now since we are talking about bases and stations, can anyone show me where, say, Chicago O'hare airport, and/or New York Harbor, and/or Hong Kong airport/harbor are all controlled by one computer? Nope? That is because at this tech level it is more productive to have several computers control these facilities than try to have one central computer run things.

The Royal Caribbean Line Voyager-class ships have all of the internal housekeeping controls tied into one redundant computer center, with one computer handling the load and two computers on standby as back ups. Then you have one computer system monitoring the engine rooms and one for ship control that is also tied to the engine room system.

For the purposes of a space station, that would approximate the computer-controlled housekeeping system on the Voyagers. The Freedom-class ships have a similar set-up.

 

[rancke]

A) I never said that it shouldn't be fixed. I also never said one should fail an entire ruleset or module because of one of these flaws. I said these flaws are part and parcel of Traveller. Are you saying they aren't? I don't think so.

If pointing out that these flaws are part and parcel of Traveller wasn't a "who cares" argument, then what was it? What point were you trying to make? No one has suggested that an entire ruleset should be failed because of its flaws. I just don't think simplified rules should be used to limit the possibilities of complex settings.

B) I have no issue with finding solutions, especially solutions sanctioned by the authors.

A bit difficult to obtain sanction to a solution if you don't identify a flaw and come up with a solution first.

On the other hand, I have extreme issues with someone who is not one of the authors ramming their particular solution down the throats of the rest of us.

Yeah, that would be nasty. Fortunately it never happens. No one but the moderators have the ability to ram anything down anybody's throat (figuratively speaking), and I don't think they ever do. I can't recall any instances, anyway.

Or am I wrong? Is it possible? Just how does anyone go about ramming their solutions down the throat of the rest?

We have all experienced this on these boards. It isn't pleasant.

What, someone came to your house and forced you to read a post you disliked?

If the authors don't back a particular solution, that solution is a "In Your Traveller Universe" solution. Doesn't make it a correct solution, doesn't make it an unrealistic solution, It is just the workaround valid in YTU. Is this an incorrect, or illogical position?

I believe that using simplified game rules to limit the possibilities of a complex setting is a fallacy, whether committed by someone authorized to make decisions about the OTU or not. Is this an incorrect or illogical position?


Hans